now. back to baghdad? let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start with us getting back into iraq. question, do you as an american citizen of this country think we should be doing this -- getting back into the iraqi fighting this time in the midst of a civil war? do you think the president has the constitutional -- or the moral authority to do this? i asked these questions tonight because this afternoon president obama who won the presidency by opposing the decision to paycheck take the united states into iraq said he was takings us, if only by a few measured steps, into that country's civil war. yes, he is.

the president didn't direct air strikes against isis which is fighting its way to baghdad. he did direct a shipment of intelligence capabilities to iraq to identify what he called potential targets for such strikes. he did direct hubs hundreds of u.s. advisers to aide the iraqi government now. he did urge president malaki to form a more inclusive government saying we'll send him initial aid nonetheless, no matter what he does or doesn't do. the question tonight for all of us watching and here on this program is under what constitutional or moral right are we inching our way into an iraqi civil war based on religion? is this what the american people want? why, will someone tell me, do the television networks and newspapers continue to accept the discrediteded voices of the people who sold us into invading and occupying iraq in the first place? all those people want is what they wanted from the start -- as massive u.s. military bassen chon permanently in the middle east with an arm's reach within

every country in the region which fails to march to the our orders. they wanted us to knock off saddam ma seen, gadhafi, bomb iranment they will not stop until we are up to our necks in mideast quick sand. david cornish, washington bureau chief from mother jones and erin guerin, an international correspondent. let's begin with what president obama said today. >> we have positioned additional u.s. military assetses in the region. because of our increased intelligence resources we are developing more information about potential targetses associated with isil. we will be prepared to the take targeted precise military action if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it. it is not the place for the united states to choose iraq's leader.

it is clear that only leaders who can govern with an inclusive agenda can truly bring the iraqi people together and help them through this crisis. >> after listening to the president -- and i generally support the president and i'm generally with him in terms of restraint. i'm not sure he showed restraint. why are we going over there and picking out bombing targets? why are we bringing in aides with no preconditions about changing the nature of the war? >> he tried to straddle the line because he feels pressure mainly from the right about do something -- >> screw them. >> i'm with you. what he the didn't do was accurately describe the crisis. this is not malaki versus isil or isis, this band of people too extreme for al qaeda. it's a growing sunni coalition including people from the old government and the military that we disbanded who are baathist, sunni and secularists banning

together with isis and taking over part of the towns that isis conquers as it moves on. it's easy to say if you are john mccain or somebody else, bomb isis. that's not the issue. this is a real sectarian civil war. if that's the case it changes your options. the president didn't come out today. i don't think he could politically, and say this is a vexing issue. we have two sides. it's not just good versus bad. >> what's our agenda? >> we have a couple of strategic interests. he didn't define that. >> let me go to you. from the beginning of the war, my skepticism was if you go into a country you have a lot of influence while you are there. when you come out it begins to be the country it was before you went in. that's common sense. it was ruled by the sunnis for 300 years. we knocked them out of power. didn't we know the minute we left they would try to come back? they are coming back with isis leading the fight. . isn't it obvious they thought they should have been running the country when we got there and still do? >> sure. and if the country's shiite majority and now that there is a

shiite coalition there, theyen want to stay in power. they think they have every right to do so. behind the scenes what you see here is a lot of jockeying around nouri al malaki. will he stay or go? >> are we trying to bump him off? i mean, knock him out of power. >> the support appearses to be softening. it isn't our job to bump him off. >> like vietnam. isn't there a rumor floating around, a buzz that we want him out? >> yeah. that's either true or a shot across the bow so that the rumors out this there so malaki is worried. either way, it serves the purpose of allowing -- giving more time here for iraqis to make a decision. they actually are discussing this now. there is political posturing going on now about whether he stays. >> everyone right or right center looks to and other americans look to him as a guy people know what he's talking about.

videotape is better than me telling you. the former top commander aimed of the danger of taking sides in a sectarian conflict saying the u.s. support should be contingent on a more inclusive iraqi government. get the politics straight before we start shooting. >> this cannot be the united states being the air force for shia militias or a shia on sunni arab fight. it has to be a fight of oh all of iraq against extremists. there has to be a government that's trusted by all elements of the society and, indeed, if

america is to support then it would be in support of a government against extremists rather than one side of what could be a sectarian civil war. >> how do we reshape it the way the general says we should? of course the united states would much prefer to be supporting a legitimate government of the people against the bad guys, the criminal class basically. instead it looks like we are getting involved more and more again talking about targeting air strikes that we are taking this side of the shia against the sunni. he says we can't do that. we can't be the air force of the shia. how do we change the shia government into a broad ranging government in iraq that will actually last and not be a cause for war? >> it might not be possible. in the last week we have gone in the wrong direction in a lot of ways. reports from iraq say that malaki is not showing an interest in becoming more inclusive. you have shia clerics putting out the calls to young men to join militias which now is more important than the military itself.

>> they have a reason to fight. >> they have a reason to fight. malaki doesn't is control over them. >> if you're malaki now, would malaki rather have the support of the united states eventually which he thinks he'll get eventually because we won't let them fall, plus the iranians or basically say, screw you, to the iranians and shia. i'm bringing in the sunnis, the people you hate. seals his calculations have to be to wait a couple of weeks, hang on here. if i can get the united states to come in and iranians i have this won. while should malaki change? >> i believe he thinks he can have both u.s. support when he needs it, even over a complaint. and the backing of the iranians without having to give up a lot to either one. it remains to be seen whether that works. that appearses to be what he's betting. >> people marry each other saying, he'll change. >> no. >> mike myers said that's a wish sandwich. why do we think -- i remember a case -- totally irrelevant, but these are important points. i said it this morning on "morning joe." big heavy weight weather man gets hired because he's a big happy, jolly guy. they say, lose weight and quit telling jokes.

you can't change people. you got there as the leader of the shiites. forget it and become a pope francis character that includes everybody. >> well, that's actually what the u.s. is trying to get him to do. they know that it's never going to be perfect. but the u.s. argument to him, for more than five years has been, look, if you want to be considered a statesman, if you want international legitimacy, ongoing u.s. support, you cannot govern as the sunni king. >> his reaction? >> his reaction is, oh, don't worry, i've got it. he did for a while. he had a multi ethnic -- he got rid of one and another. >> all politics is local. his constituency is more fired up and radical in response to the evolving sunni attack. to ask him in the middle of it to say, now you should be

embracing the sunnis when your people are running the battlefield to fight them. he's been corrupt are from the beginning. >> david, we are symbiotic on this. in two weeks will we be more involved, sietding with the malaki government against the insurgency of isis? is >> i think a week from now we it will be more of a civil war. >> will we be in it? >> i think the president doesn't want to get into it. if there is a way to target isis, fine but they are hard to separate. >> is the president going for air strikes eventually? >> he's playing for time. why wouldn't he? he doesn't want to do anything to make the situation worse. he wants to the -- >> he's doing whatever gets you through the night like frank sinatra said.

>> you can't say any more in politicses this is a vexing problem. it will take us a few days to sort it out. we're working on it. he has to come up with something. >> thank you, david. very smart. of course you know your stuff -- generally. something else. coming up, the neocons are back. they got us into iraq. shamelessly they are now experts for getting in again. big surprise. also the great senator elizabeth warren will be here. she's a huge hero to progressives in the democratic party and around the country. perhaps the most powerful elected voice among progressives now. in polls of democrats she's often second only to hillary. her voice will be heard. even if she doesn't run for president. it wasn't easy but congressman steven king, may have topped himself with his tweet after the u.s. patent & trademark office cancelled the washington are redskins trademark protections saying, obama raids redskins by weapon niezing uspto. cancels redskins logo.

free people will not tolerate a kim yung potus. let me finish with what i said about the war in iraq before it started. this is "hardball," the place for politics. she's still the one for you. and cialis for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment is right. cialis is also the only daily ed tablet approved to treat symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any allergic reactions like rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a free 30-tablet trial.

ask your doctor about cialis for daily use iwas thathe biggest vit gave me...ar... confidence to buy my very first car... and to walk out of that dealership... and know that i got a good deal. save time, save money, and never overpay. visit truecar.com house republicans today voted to replace eric cantor. the result, a victoria ary for the old crowd. the regulars. not the tea party. california's kevin mccarthy is majority whip. the number three spot in the leadership. beat idaho tea partier raul labrador to take cantor's place. after the stunning defeat last week a lot of voices on the hard right said his successor should be a tea partier. but mccarthy is the winner tonight. louisiana's steve skalis won a three-man race to succeed as majority whip. we'll be right back.

at shell, we believe the world needs a broader mix of energies, which is why we are supplying natural gas, to generate cleaner electricity,

that has around 50% fewer co2 emissions than coal. and why with our partner in brazil, we are producing a biofuel made from renewable sugarcane to fuel cars. let's broaden the world's energy mix, let's go. could help your business didavoid hours of delaynd test caused by slow internet from the phone company? that's enough time to record a memo. idea for sales giveaway. return a call. sign a contract. pick a tie. take a break with mr. duck. practice up for the business trip. fly to florida. win an award. close a deal. hire an intern. and still have time to spare. check your speed. see how fast your internet can be. switch now and add voice and tv for $34.90. comcast business. built for business.

welcome back to "hardball." they have been coming out of the woodwork, the same people who sold the iraq war in 2001, 2002 and 2003 are banging the drum for intervention with zero shame, clueless that their opinion is discredited. last night on fox news meghan kelly gave a wind up on a question to dick cheney that should have flattened him at the start. >> in your op-ed you write, "rarely has a u.s. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many." but time and time again history has proven that you got it wrong in iraq, sir. you said there was no doubt hussein had weapons of mass destruction, we would be greeted as liberators, the insurgency was in the last throes in 2005. you said extremists would have to, "rethink their strategy of jihad." now with almost a trillion dollars spent there, 4,500

americans lives lost there, what do you say to those who say you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many? >> no. i just fundamentally disagree, reagan -- meghan. you have to look at the track record. we inherited a situation where there was no doubt in anybody's mind about the ex tent of saddam's involvement in weapons of mass destruction. >> reagan was the name of the young girl in "the exorcist." i think dick cheney thought he was facing something as horrific there. we have seen them out there. here is a sampling of the recent op-eds and articles out there. dick and liz cheney's "wall street journal". the collapsing obama doctrine. rarely has a u.s. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many. and fred kagan and william crystal with an article titled "what to do in iraq." do the opposite, by the way. and robert kagan writing a call

to arms in the new republic. it's been old home week on the network green wars with the iraq war pushers like paul bremer, william crystal, david frome. joining me is michael steele who is an nbc political analyst and joy reed, host of the reed report. thanks for joining us. having been through this fight many years ago, in fact, i have been review aring my old columns in 2001, 2002, 2003. the long wind-up to war was paved by these voices. everyone spoke with authority about how it would be a cake walk, slam dunk and would give us great great benefits like free gas forever, a great economic boom. we would be greeted as liberators. it would take weeks at most according to oh cheney. wrong, wrong, wrong. they were wrong.

how did they get so much credibility? i turned on "meet the press" and i saw paul wolfowitz. i thought it was a rerun. >> i think part of it is bringing those voices into the updated conversation. >> why? why are they back? >> well, because they have something to say obviously. >> which is? more war. >> they're not saying more war. >> they're saying get in there and start shooting. >> look, chris -- >> take sides and shoot in the war. >> i think their articles -- >> read it. >> the articles speak for themselves. to your question of why they are back in the conversation, i think a lot of the networks, ours included, are looking for voices to contrast against what the public is saying now and what the new realities now. >> playing devil's advocate -- >> how do you justify -- you saw dick cheney say the war was won. everyone looked at the screen and said, are you kidding me?

that's part of the ongoing narrative about where american people are now on this argument about the war. >> this is a bartels & james ad here with his daughter. i think they are selling new sodee-pop or a wine cooler or something. it's a ridiculous performance. nobody coaches them what to do. michael makes the point. bring them back and show them how wrong they were. that's the base of the thing. let the three stooges perform again to remember how wrong they were. is that a value? >> it did look like an infomercial by the cheney father and son duo. it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if you had a dictatorship of a secular sunni dictator who was repressing and prosecute suppressing a shiite majority in a country and had been giving them the business and treating them badly decade after decade. if you hand the country to that majority are they won't treat the minority with equanimity.

then you disband their army, accepted them home, armed and angry and try to set up a special project of the neo-cons where they would be open and amenable to foreign investment, red oil. that this was not going to go well. my first column for the miley herald opposed the war. if i could figure it out in miami in front of my computer i'm not sure why any of these guys would be considered an expert in anything. none of them could figure it out. they thought it would go swimmingly with few troops and no sectarian conflict. i don't think their expertise is needed. >> that was the easy sell. i agree. that was the problem a lot of conservatives and otherses many

the country had at the time. meghan kelly spoke br for a lot of conservatives and republicans around the country. going back through the beginning of the process and how you misread the tea leaves in terms of going in with no clear plan of what it looks like. that's the problem obama has. he has 300 folks back on the ground to fix it. >> here is the question to liz cheney are from meghan kelly who took it and ran with it. watch liz with a wicked attitude about the president. this is quite personal. here she is. >> do you think that president obama is dangerous? >> yes. i'll answer that one, meghan. there is no question. i think he is unique in terms of a president who is sitting in the oval office who made it clear that his desire is to weaken the nation. there is no question that he's a dangerous president and that we've got to fight back and ensure that people understand the importance of american power. >> i got it.

>> in securing our power and freedom and security. >> that's close tole kaing the president a traitor. when you say he's out to weaken the united states. not cut the cost of arms spending. she meant weaken this country. he's an enemy of the united states, dangerous to the united states and somehow, i guess to an election found themselves in the oval office. >> this is slightly higher birtherism, i suppose. it is of a piece with what this wing of the neo conservative movement, what they did. they didn't misread tea leaves. they twisted this country's raw emotion and horror at what happened to 9/11 and they took that emotion, took that firemen's war people wanted fought and exported it to the pre-existing project to prospect for oil in iraq. they twisted this country in a way that's vile. tot not just making a mistake. i talked to doug pfeiffer and a convoluted case he got from 9/11 to saddam hussein.

total falsehood. remember the mush. room cloud, implying this country with no long-range missiles could nuke us? this was not mistakes. this was vile. >> thank you so much. you got in your first column what i got to in my last column. i will read a little bit later tonight at the end of the show about what i wrote in my last column for the san francisco chronicle on the point you made. thank you, michael. it was one-sided tonight. >> it's "hardball." >> up next, add another to steve king's greatest hits. the iowa republican u.s. congressman, he compared president obama to kim jong-un. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

looks like we're about to board. mm-hmm. i'm just comparing car insurance rates at progressive.com. is that where they show the other guys' rates, too? mm-hmm. cool. yeah. hi. final boarding call for flight 294. [ bells ring on sign ] [ vehicle beeping ] who's ready for the garlic festival? this guy! bringing our competitors' rates to you -- now, that's progressive.

why did it take so long to bring this guy in? >> what took so long? >> it's been 642 day. >> president bush didn't wait 642 days to catch bin laden. if he couldn't catch him right away, he wasn't going to catch him at all. that's called having pride. >> time for the sideshow ft that was the great stephen colbert. meanwhile congressman steve king is at it again after the u.s. patent office cancelled trademark protectionses for the washington redskins the iowa republican weighed in on the debate by comparing president obama to north korea's dictator. congressman king tweeted out, quote, obama raids redskins by weapon niezing uspto, cancels redskins logo. free people will not tolerate a kim jong potus. the patent office made the move calling the name dispa rajjing to native americans. the women of washington put

partisanship aside to raise money to fight breast cancer. the annual congress knappal women's softball game between political leaders and the women of the press corps was yesterday. throwing out the first pitch was former congresswoman gabrielle giffords. the democrat from arizona felt good about her skills tweeting out 50 cent, bet you my first pitch will be better than yours was. it couldn't have been worse. giffords was referring to the rap singer's embarrassing first pitch at the mets game last month. the congressional members won 10-5. up next, a big story on the progressive front. senator elizabeth warren joins us when we return. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

when you compare the top speed of dsl from the phone company with the top speed of comcast business internet... well, there's really no comparison. why pay more for less? call today for a low price on speeds up to 150mbps.

and find out more about our two-year price guarantee. comcast business. built for business. [ female announcer ] f provokes lust. ♪ it elicits pride... incites envy... ♪ ...and unleashes wrath. ♪ temptation comes in many heart-pounding forms. but only one letter. "f". the performance marque from lexus.

hi. i'm francis rivera. here's what's happening. president obama awarded the medal of honor to a former marine who was gravely wounded shielding a fellow marine from a grenade. corporal william kyle carpenter displayed heroism to inspire for generations. the largest refinery continues welcome back to "hardball." with the exception of the presidential race, of course, perhaps no election was followed as closely in 2012 as the massachusetts u.s. senate race

that brought progressive hero elizabeth warren to washington. in her book "a fighting chance" she tracks her incredible journey to the senate. she writes of her family's financial struggles as a kid. her father went from being a salesman to a maintenance man. after he suffered a heart attack the family almost lost their house. her mother answered phones at sears to make ends meet. warren argues the system is rigged against working families like the one she grew up with saying over the past generation america's determination to give every kid access to affordable college or technical training has faded. the infrastructure that helps build businesses and jobs, has crumbled. optimism that defines us as a people has been beaten and bruced. it doesn't have to be this way. she tells the story of a woman she met at a campaign event who walked two miles -- walked --

just to see her. the woman was unemployed and wondered if she would work again. she told warren, quote, i'm here because i'm running out of hope. what hope is there for elizabeth warren and the democratic party? what are they offering that woman and others? senator warren joins us now. thank you so much. congratulations on your book "a fighting chance is a wonderful title and sentiment. not the big questions of wall street but the simple question -- what can and could or will the democratic party do since it is the party that wants to do it to create real jobs for people so the families up in scranton in pennsylvania don't see their kids running away trying to find a job somewhere? that the black kid in northville in the old irish neighborhood where i grew up has a job prospect he can see coming when he's in his teens. he has an uncle who is working so he knows the job he would like to get. to restore the hope of a meaningful family building employment that seems to be gone in so much of the country? how do you bring it back? >> well, this isn't magic. we know how to do this. we did this for nearly half a

century. coming out of the great depression. until about 1980. we made the investments together that helped build opportunity for all of us. i will start with education. we made those investments in education. one of the things i talk about in the book. i went to a commuter college that cost $50 a semester. you know, it opened a million doorses for me. how could i go to a school that cost $50 a semester? i grew up in an america that said we collectively, all of us, are going to make investments in education so any kid who works hard, who's playing by the rules, who tries to get out there and make something of herself is going to have a fighting chance to make that happen. we did something else. we made the investmentses together that helped build a robust economy pt. you know, every time we talk about roads and are bridges, when we talk about power grids, it's are really about setting the table so that small businesses can start.

so that business can grow. so they can flourish and create jobs here at home. there is aen reason we make those investments. it makes it easier. it makes it more profitable to invest in having those jobs here in america. and one more part p. we, for more than half a century, had an idea. this is what separated us as a people. that we would invest in research. in medical research, scientific research. why did we invest in those things? because we believed that if we built a big pipeline of ideas that our children would be able to create things and build things we could only dream of. together, that built a are robust economy for america, an economy that expanded, created more jobs, that meant that as a country we got richer and family

by family we got richer. those things worked together. we know how to do this. it changed in the 1980s. when the republicans came up with a different vision. they said, that's not how you build an economy. the way you build an economy is you let those at the very top, the richest and the most powerful keep more of their money and power and somehow it will trickle down for everybody else. we tried that for more than 30 years. . it really hasn't worked. it has cut the legs out from under america's middle class. >> let me tell you the picture i'm drawing now. >> yep. >> in graphic terms. david garth, the political guy in new york said get rid of the smell of decay and bring in the smell of construction. we know what construction smells like, dirt being moved, cement. >> yep. >> when i go to pen station it's a rat hole. jfk is an embarrassment. so much is falling apart.

our cities will be urntd water thanks to climate change. we have nobody works. i don't understand the union movement. why aren't they complaining every day? we want big construction projects. the president of the united states isn't doing it. he talks about one thing one day, something else the next day. i don't hear you getting it done. the democrats control the u.s. senate. democrats control the white house. when are you going to do what you said you would like to do? is it 2017? >> no, now. >> 2023? >> it's now. >> it isn't now. >> stop this. we just voted on this last week. you stop and think about it. because all of the things you have talked about, every time we get up and talk about helping education, whether it's preschool or college, we talk about roads and bridges and power grids. we talk about nih research. every time. the republicans say exactly the same thing. they say, there is not enough money. there's not enough money. then they say, they are going to fight to protect every tax

loophole that currently exists that permits billionaires to pay at a lower tax rate than their secretarieses. they fight to protect every subsidy to big oil, big agriculture. they say they will continue to fight for all of the things and that's what the fight is about in washington. we just saw it last week. >> you're blaming the republicans, but you control the senate and the white house. >> remember what the vote was last week in the united states senate. we put forward a bill to say, look, we want our young people to getten an education then we shouldn't crush hem with student loan debt. right now in america, there is $1.2 trillion outstanding in student loan debt. 40 million people dealing with student loans. here's the trick. the united states government is charging interest rates that are producing tens of billions of dollars in profits for the

government. so what we proposed is to bring those interest rate ares down, to wring some of the profits out of the system. the problem, of course, is those profits are baked into the budget. so we said, we're going to pay for it by sewing up some of the tax loopholes available only for millionaires and billionaires. i want to be clear on this. the republicans filibustered it. we got within two votes. we got every single democrat. we got both independents and we picked up three republicans. we are at 58 votes in the choice between billionaires on the one hand and students on the other. that's about as direct as you can make the choices. that's what we are going to do. we're going to keep making it clear what the choices are. we are going to be out there talking to the grassroots, to people, to push back on the republicans who say it is more important to protect billionaires, people who have already made it, than it is people just trying to get a start.

that's what this is all about. are we going to be there for people who just want a fighting chance to build something for themselveses? >> everything you're doing is good. i just don't see the main hope coming back to the american people when it comes to real jobs. i still talk about the examples i grew up with whether are it's the middle class families getting old and seeing kids move away because there are no jobs, the factories are closed, boeing, buds closed. all the places you could take a subway ride to a job are closeded, either replaced by nothing or tennis courts and nice restaurants. . but there aren't job creating businesses left. i still don't hear from you and the democrats. real construction jobs. i was in china with my wife who works for a big hotel company. they are building on friday night over there. the bulldozers are moving. we don't do it because we are afraid to borrow the money or tax the money. but we are not doing it. >> no! >> five years ago we were having the same conversation. you are a fine senator, but it isn't happening. it isn't.

>> you have to talk about why it's not happening. this is what i talk about. the fact that china is investing 9% of gdp in infrastructure. here in the united states, we are down at 2.4% and the republicans want to cut it further. the fundamental question, we have a huge fight going on here in washington. >> call the president and say do something big on infrastructure. it will grab the public imagination. he's not doing it. >> you've got to have the money to do it. the republicans are filibustering in the senate. >> yeah. >> they won't bring bills to the floor in the house. but you don't just wash your hands and say nobody is doing this. at least you have one side trying to fight for it. we've got to get out and fight and our only chance is if we can engage enough people at the grassroots level, enough people who say what do you mean you'res choosing billionaires over students? what do you mean.

you're going to continue to do subsidies for big oil but there is no money for roads and bridges? those are the choices right now that the republicans and the democrats are fighting in pg -- congress. which way are we going to go? we are fighting back for what we believe in. we are fighting to build a future for america. we can't do it by ourselves. we need people across the country to push on the republicans. like i said, on student loans in the senate, we need two more votes. it's time the to push. >> good luck. the name of the book is "the fighting chance." i'm glad i got you aroused a bit. >> you bet. >> i still got my focus, a little bit different than yours, more blue collar. keep at it. up next, another con-fab with the red hots of the right. new polling shows the tea party is out of step with the country. wait until you see polling stats. they are not like everybody else. this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ heart beating, monitor beeping ] woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods?

[ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you -- including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year. for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen.

the tea party. they're just not like the rest of us. the new polling proves it. "hardball" back after this.

we're back. the republicans might be in good shape come november's mid-term election. there is more evidence that the gop could be in big trouble come 2016 when we pick a new president. our latest nbc/"wall street journal" found slightly more than half of core republicans

identify with the tea party. that's a majority. these are the same most committeded and active voters in republican primaries. why could that spell trouble in the 2016 presidential contrast? because according to the new poll the tea party is out of step with the with country at large on the most important issues of the day or many of them. look at these numbers. just 19% of tea party republicans say immigration helps the country. among all americans support for immigration is 47%. on the common core education policy 38% of tea party republicans support the standards in school. among all americans support for common core is at 59%, radically different. when it comes to climate change, just 22%, one in five of tea party republicans say action should be takenen. in contrast to 61% of the country at large who support action on climate change. again, just 23% of tea partiers approve of a proposal to reduce greenhouse gases versus 57% of the entire that supports such a proposal.

joan walsh is an plooens msnbc political analyst and we're back. the republicans might be in good shape, come november's midterm election, but there's more evidence the gop could be in big trouble come 2016 when we pick a new president. our latest nbc/"wall street journal" poll found 54%, slightly more than half, of core republicans identify with the tea party. i think that's one thing you're seeing is that the tea party is

both pushing candidates to the right in the primaries, and also pushing -- for 2014 -- and pushing potential nominees to the primary in 2016 as well. if you watch hillary clinton's book tour, hillary clinton can say lots of things she's for. she's for gay marriage, for immigration reform. if you're republican, you can't say a lot that you're for. tea party economists are against a lot of things. it's not really clear what they're for. >> joan, your thoughts? we're running through these. i think some of these polling questions could be worded differently. illegal immigration would have a different result. seems like the tea party don't like the idea of immigration when you don't say illegal immigration. the word immigration seems to turn them off. 68%, seven in ten don't like -- they're all immigrants, these people. don't they know it? they're against it. anyway, your thoughts. >> look, we both know there can be debates about immigration reform, things about it that are controversial. the whole idea, there once was some bipartisan movement on this.

i mean, really as recently as a year ago, there was some progress in the senate. but they have put this entirely off limits for their party. this used to be something that democrats and republicans worked together on, or it didn't split necessarily along party lines. the same is true for climate change. cap and trade is a republican idea, chris, that we both know of lots of northeastern and western republicans who once were for environmental measures. richard nixon signed, you know, the clean air and clean water act. >> sure. >> this did not used to be, again -- >> he created the epa. >> right. right. this did not use to be an area where the two parties split. and so these are moderate things. we're not talking about the radical fringe, and we're also talking about two sets of issues that are really crucial to the future of the country, and this minority, they're a majority of the republican party, is blocking any kind of movement, and it's really tragic and dangerous for the country. >> perry, you're into this, and i want to get your thinking about this, the common core.

i would think that would -- i can imagine in a different era that being a strong republican thing. let's make sure the kids have the reading, writing, arithmetic down, the basics. let me be smart in terms of basic english, basic arithmetic, handle a job at the age of 18 coming out of school. you can take care of yourself in this country if you have the basics. why is that an anti-republican idea, anti-conservative idea to have the basics of your education lock solid as you go into adult life? >> you're right, chris. the three big leaders of common core in america, michael bloomberg, bill gates, jeb bush. >> right. >> none of those three people are big liberals from what i can tell. but it goes to the fact that common core, if you ask conservatives, they view that as the obamacare of education. it's a federal -- >> what's the lefty piece of it? what are they teaching that they're afraid they're getting taught? what's the core of the problem? >> the core of the problem is there are more tests, and also

the tests -- it's a national test. it's not an obama administration-created standards. the standards are national in structure. their view is anything that's national means it's not state or local control. and that's the core debate. >> again, it's just demonizing the federal government. i mean, this, you know, originally it came out of the bush administration. it goes back to the first bush administration really. this push for national standards and this push to raise standards. some of it is actually controversial on the left, but what they've done is demonize the notion of a federal role in education. and so they see -- this is part of the black helicopter movement. they see -- >> no, i think they're rooting for the other side in the "planet of the apes." i've seen the movie. the ones who don't believe -- people learning anything. they're not supposed to learn anything, don't learn anything. i'm just kidding, but it seems like they were against learning at this point. perry, thanks for teaching me that stuff. perry bacon. thank you for joining us. joan walsh, of course. we'll be right back after this. when you run a business, you can't settle for slow.

that's why i always choose the fastest intern. the fastest printer. the fastest lunch. turkey club. the fastest pencil sharpener. the fastest elevator.

the fastest speed dial. the fastest office plant. so why wouldn't i choose the fastest wifi? i would. switch to comcast business internet and get the fastest wifi included. comcast business. built for business. let me finish tonight with the last words of the last article i wrote as national columnist for the "san francisco chronicle." sunday september 1st, 2002. "so i'll say it, i hate this war that's coming in iraq. i don't think we'll be proud of it. oppose this war because it will create a millennium of hatred and suicidal terrorism that comes with it. you talk about bush trying to avenge his father, what about the tens of millions of arab sons who will want to finish a war we start next spring in baghdad?" here we are 12 years later facing the backwash of the war, president bush, dick cheney and

ideological cohorts began in march of 2003. all those sunnis that were thrown into the streets when we came in. overthrew saddam, disbanded the iraqi army and government. those are all now rooting for isis as it fights its way to baghdad, all the angry hearts who have a motive for killing and letting others kill are hoping for an overthrow of the maliki government. what made us think that the killing we started in march of 2003 would end when we decided to leave? what instilled in u.s. the confidence that the families of all those dead arabs would not remember who caused it and pine for someone who would repay it? you go into a country, kill anyone who stands in your way, you set up a system that puts one side in power over the other, you kick out the people who have been running the country for 300 years, rip the uniforms from the army and send them running, throw people from their government jobs and positions, and don't expect them to remember who did this to them? watch that rag tag army working its way toward baghdad right now. look and see who joins it. and then remember what role, we

the united states played in iraq's history in planting the hatred that now marching toward the iraqi capital. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. and the face of growing chaos in iraq, president barack obama today announced renewed american military involvement in that country. >> we have had advisers in iraq through our embassy and we're prepared to send a small number of additional american military advisers, up to 300, to assess how we can best train, advise and support iraqi security forces going forward. american forces will not be returning to combat in iraq. going forward, we will be preparing to take targeted and precise military action if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it. if we do, i willon